so why only slug particular users though? why not everyone?
does it cost the company more money to host to android devices? i wouldn't think so, certainly no more than off the internet.. maybe its harder to survive on advertising income stream on android devices?
yes, because you're free to move to the separate location and work for that help desk for a similar quality of life, likewise its likely that a similar company is likely to set up shop in your town to give you the same opportunity.
if American jobs are being generated by international companies then there is no issue with outsourcing (mostly "sales & consultant" sort of jobs as far as i can tell, which is odly enough, is disproportionately well paying in comparison to other types of labor)
if its a one way street however, its a negative.
As i see it, company x fires 10 workers and outsources, then company yam expands into America and hires a sales rep for 10x the cost of the standard worker.
best way to keep a mind closed is to offer alternative answers to lifes biggest questions. its more important that the scientific method is taught in school rather than "this is exactly how it is. don't question it". regardless of whether they are being taught incorrect science.
I don't know, but it sounds like your trying to pretend to be a web consultant, and it looks like your not registered with the board... don't worry, after 5 or so months of investigation we will just send you a letter asking you to stop.
if you don't think it matters if its public or private company, then the argument is more along the lines of "its senior management telling the staff members they aren't aloud to express their grievances to the board of directors."
but because there is a difference that matters, its Politician telling public servants they can't express grievances to those who elect the politician.
"listen to your wise advice" = listen to your wise advice, then that seems like a valid concern
"Its like you can have an opinion" = "Its like you can't have an opinion"
"representation on how the company runs. " = "representation on how the company runs, this is important, people really need to learn the ability to separate fact from opinion, stop falling for media hype and never rely on a single source of information as an accurate portrait of the argument"
"loose" = "lose"
there is probably more, spelling / grammar issues, but i only have so much time for people whose opinion on the content is based on the structure & correctness of the language used to portray the message, rather than the message itself.
If you are divulging government sensitive information, obviously there are laws in place to deal with this, if your just having a bitch because the government won't provide hot running water in your building, or that contract X is going to flop because they didn't listen to your wise advice.
I don't understand America, its like you can have an opinion on anything without opening your self up to lawsuits, every word you utter is taken as fact?
I can certainly understand why employers don't want their employees to bad mouth the company, but instead of legislating against it, they should actually legislate to protect the opinions of the staff against dismissal.
If every employee was protected in the ability to express their grievances to the public it would have several positive effects.
1) the public would get a better idea on how company X treats its employees.
2) Improves working conditions for the employees through competition.
3) maybe people will get use to the idea that people are going to bitch about work, and maybe not take what everyone says as a serious representation on how the company runs.
and negative effects
1) Companies with high turnover would probably lose profit.
2) Could lead to abuse with competing companies purchasing "negative" opinions.
3) Products that are mostly marketing with very little actual value may loose sales, (less money for company = less money for state)
Bing is copying Google results into their own indexing system to provide a better service. Their results aren't a carbon copy of Google. but that doesn't mean they aren't copying Google.
If Microsoft really had a leg to stand on you'd see the lawyers fly, its not like Microsoft to avoid using lawyers for defamation.
where as its against Google image to start trying to sue a company while you can generate good PR from it, that, and suing such a big company like Microsoft is dangerous regardless of how good your case is.
I'm from australia and as the representitive of the southern hemisphere i find this offensive.
lumping us together with those nutjobs from southern USA.
Even dumb people pay taxes, and those taxes which could be going towards worth while scientific endeavors in the form of grants can now go towards astrologists after a quick buck.
No, they're not "just as valid" and they're not "protests". In your example, you can just walk through that crowd if you want. In a DDoS, you can't - because the target cannot respond. With a DDoS it's more like a flash mob showed up and stole all the money out of the cash register, and then nailed the doors to the business closed (this may come as a shock, but the business has to pay a lot of money for that bandwidth your DDoS chews up).
brick and mortar shops pay more in rent than what an internet company does in bandwidth allocation as well as having significantly less capacity to deal with excess customers. so yes, it will cost the company money, but not significantly more than a live "protest".
Not only this, but if the DDoS isn't large enough, you won't even realise there is a protest, where as 1 person in a store protesting can be much more disruptive.
Second, when attacking companies like PayPal or Visa, you're actually negatively affecting millions of people as well as that business, who can't transact online, or miss payments like utilities or rent because they're trying to get money out of a PayPal account while the website's down.
and if i protested at a bank or a post office you would have similar sort of problem, just to a smaller scale.
I wasn't aware choosing who you want to do business with was unethical? This is news to me. So if I walk into your house because the door is open, it's unethical for you to tell me to leave? Nice! News flash: ethics is subjective. Choosing to kick Wikileaks wasn't unethical, just as asking someone to leave your house isn't unethical. Stop trying to spin it as if it was.
your right, ethics is subjective, which means its also subjective to the motions of the internet where they make their income stream, the "internet" doesn't look too kindly on those against freedom of the press, this is beside the point... because the alternative to trying to appear ethical to anonymous from the internet is simply to invest against potential problems of your income stream, a shop owner with a brick and mortar shop Insures his property against the unforseen, why not for a website?
also,
Choosing to kick Wikileaks wasn't unethical,
true, however holding all of wikileaks money so they couldn't access it after they had legally entered in to a financial contract IS unethical. paypal didn't just stop doing business with wikileaks.
a voluntary DDos IS a form of protest, it's not as peaceful as collecting around a designated "protest" spot so that your not actually in the way of anything and unlikely to achieve anything.
Its about the availability of getting that gun to commit the crime. the harder it is, the less likely it is to occur, obviously it's not impossible though.
FYI its not illegal to have guns in Australia, you just need to be part of a gun club (which store your gun or you can store it at home in a vault) Or own a property of a certain size. the average citizen in Australia has no desire to have a gun and is happy the next door neighbor doesn't have one either.
what I'd like to note though is the way you see the police deal with people in the UK and Australia compared to America. They seem to be more relaxed and less oppressive, i guess its because they don't have to worry about being shot constantly.
perhaps the universe has been expanding consistently since before what we call "the big bang" perhaps we were part of a super massive (and i mean really big here) black hole that has seperated its self from a singularity due to (not causing) the expanding universe, this caused the black hole to release all its stored mass/energy in the form of the most simple sub atomic particles (muons and quarts i think, probably wrong though) which then combined to form what we see now as the observable universe.
then again perhaps space isn't just the medium of matter but is in fact the opposite of matter, and matter is simply just pockets of low amounts of space..
and maybe what happens inside a black hole isn't that everything turns into a singularity but instead reverses the time momentum, therefor if you were to observe matter inside a black hole it would look like its accelerating towards the edges of the black hole, this would also mean that instead of slowing down as you approach a black hole to an infinitely slower speed to the point where you can't actually go through the event horizon is just a reversing effect from the inside where going a standard speed as you approach the edge it appears like your accelerating away faster and faster until you appear to accelerate faster than the speed of light and disappear (to the observer). to the vessel that's attempt to "escape" the universe what would happen is that the rest of the universe would appear to be going faster to the point where either the universe would end dissipating into background radiation, or if time is circular you would then observe the "big crunch & subsequent big bang". regardless of the outcome this theory allows us to represent time as being no different to the other 3 dimensions and that we simply perceive it as being significantly different.
It's also possible that our monkeys understanding of 1+1=2 is flawed and that there is significantly more going on in the universe than what could ever be comprehended in our poor monkey brains.
I think the most important question is... oh shit, my lunch ended half an hour ago, i better go.
but anyone who wants to go to that store can still get in
as long as they are comfortable walking through a store with a large group of people yelling about how immoral the owners are.
cyber "protests" in the form of a DDoS is just as valid. just because its easier doesn't mean its not valid.
also.
hundreds of people get laid off by an internet company that can't run because a group of dickheads decided to take out their web servers in "protest", and they end up on the street with their families begging for a dollar.
if your INTERNET company employs hundreds of people yet isn't able to afford any downtime then maybe you shouldn't make un-ethical decisions, or at least insure or put away for downtime that could be caused from anything, not just a DDoS attack.
the speed of light is constant, the distance between objects is what changes. (hence defining the speed of light as a constant).
your thinking of how light transmits through opaque objects, the speed on which the light travels from atom to atom through the opaque object is the same as constant speed of light, the light "slows down" because it has to jump atom to atom, light temporarily increases the energy state of the atom (which takes time) before it can be resent to the next atom, hence why light seems to slow down going through opaque material.
I disagree with the sentiment though 'the speed of light', they should change it to 'rate of electromagnetic radiation propagation'
they aren't African black, but they aren't Caucasian either. (obviously, they are Indian...)
my assertion was based on "black people" can't have a successful society, as the only numeric of success of said society was the color of the skin, if it was truly important then lighter skin would be successful society and darker skin would be less successful.
as we know that darker skinned India has quite a successful country, there for the ability to create a successful society is not defined by skin colour.
It doesn't matter as if your getting picky about race, then Egyptians exhibit more middle eastern traits than African traits.
Slashdot Mirror
so why only slug particular users though? why not everyone? does it cost the company more money to host to android devices? i wouldn't think so, certainly no more than off the internet.. maybe its harder to survive on advertising income stream on android devices?
yes, because you're free to move to the separate location and work for that help desk for a similar quality of life, likewise its likely that a similar company is likely to set up shop in your town to give you the same opportunity.
if American jobs are being generated by international companies then there is no issue with outsourcing (mostly "sales & consultant" sort of jobs as far as i can tell, which is odly enough, is disproportionately well paying in comparison to other types of labor)
if its a one way street however, its a negative.
As i see it, company x fires 10 workers and outsources, then company yam expands into America and hires a sales rep for 10x the cost of the standard worker.
So you're saying he should have taken the job and sabotaged it from within? then blame it on the Indians!
best way to keep a mind closed is to offer alternative answers to lifes biggest questions. its more important that the scientific method is taught in school rather than "this is exactly how it is. don't question it". regardless of whether they are being taught incorrect science.
not really much point participating on face book then is there?
when your parking in front of their driveway i think it it would be.
I don't know, but it sounds like your trying to pretend to be a web consultant, and it looks like your not registered with the board... don't worry, after 5 or so months of investigation we will just send you a letter asking you to stop.
Who told you about the robots?!
if you don't think it matters if its public or private company, then the argument is more along the lines of "its senior management telling the staff members they aren't aloud to express their grievances to the board of directors."
but because there is a difference that matters, its Politician telling public servants they can't express grievances to those who elect the politician.
There needs to be an edit button on /.
"listen to your wise advice" = listen to your wise advice, then that seems like a valid concern
"Its like you can have an opinion" = "Its like you can't have an opinion"
"representation on how the company runs. " = "representation on how the company runs, this is important, people really need to learn the ability to separate fact from opinion, stop falling for media hype and never rely on a single source of information as an accurate portrait of the argument"
"loose" = "lose"
there is probably more, spelling / grammar issues, but i only have so much time for people whose opinion on the content is based on the structure & correctness of the language used to portray the message, rather than the message itself.
Mod parent up
If you are divulging government sensitive information, obviously there are laws in place to deal with this, if your just having a bitch because the government won't provide hot running water in your building, or that contract X is going to flop because they didn't listen to your wise advice.
I don't understand America, its like you can have an opinion on anything without opening your self up to lawsuits, every word you utter is taken as fact?
I can certainly understand why employers don't want their employees to bad mouth the company, but instead of legislating against it, they should actually legislate to protect the opinions of the staff against dismissal.
If every employee was protected in the ability to express their grievances to the public it would have several positive effects.
1) the public would get a better idea on how company X treats its employees. 2) Improves working conditions for the employees through competition. 3) maybe people will get use to the idea that people are going to bitch about work, and maybe not take what everyone says as a serious representation on how the company runs.
and negative effects
1) Companies with high turnover would probably lose profit. 2) Could lead to abuse with competing companies purchasing "negative" opinions. 3) Products that are mostly marketing with very little actual value may loose sales, (less money for company = less money for state)
Bing is copying Google results into their own indexing system to provide a better service. Their results aren't a carbon copy of Google. but that doesn't mean they aren't copying Google.
If Microsoft really had a leg to stand on you'd see the lawyers fly, its not like Microsoft to avoid using lawyers for defamation.
where as its against Google image to start trying to sue a company while you can generate good PR from it, that, and suing such a big company like Microsoft is dangerous regardless of how good your case is.
creationism in the south. natural healing in the north, both the same kind of idiot really.
It's funny how when us southerner "nutjobs"
I'm from australia and as the representitive of the southern hemisphere i find this offensive. lumping us together with those nutjobs from southern USA.
I read that as "this is why we can't have nice things!"
Even dumb people pay taxes, and those taxes which could be going towards worth while scientific endeavors in the form of grants can now go towards astrologists after a quick buck.
No, they're not "just as valid" and they're not "protests". In your example, you can just walk through that crowd if you want. In a DDoS, you can't - because the target cannot respond. With a DDoS it's more like a flash mob showed up and stole all the money out of the cash register, and then nailed the doors to the business closed (this may come as a shock, but the business has to pay a lot of money for that bandwidth your DDoS chews up).
brick and mortar shops pay more in rent than what an internet company does in bandwidth allocation as well as having significantly less capacity to deal with excess customers. so yes, it will cost the company money, but not significantly more than a live "protest".
Not only this, but if the DDoS isn't large enough, you won't even realise there is a protest, where as 1 person in a store protesting can be much more disruptive.
Second, when attacking companies like PayPal or Visa, you're actually negatively affecting millions of people as well as that business, who can't transact online, or miss payments like utilities or rent because they're trying to get money out of a PayPal account while the website's down.
and if i protested at a bank or a post office you would have similar sort of problem, just to a smaller scale.
I wasn't aware choosing who you want to do business with was unethical? This is news to me. So if I walk into your house because the door is open, it's unethical for you to tell me to leave? Nice! News flash: ethics is subjective. Choosing to kick Wikileaks wasn't unethical, just as asking someone to leave your house isn't unethical. Stop trying to spin it as if it was.
your right, ethics is subjective, which means its also subjective to the motions of the internet where they make their income stream, the "internet" doesn't look too kindly on those against freedom of the press, this is beside the point... because the alternative to trying to appear ethical to anonymous from the internet is simply to invest against potential problems of your income stream, a shop owner with a brick and mortar shop Insures his property against the unforseen, why not for a website?
also,
Choosing to kick Wikileaks wasn't unethical,
true, however holding all of wikileaks money so they couldn't access it after they had legally entered in to a financial contract IS unethical. paypal didn't just stop doing business with wikileaks.
a voluntary DDos IS a form of protest, it's not as peaceful as collecting around a designated "protest" spot so that your not actually in the way of anything and unlikely to achieve anything.
Its about the availability of getting that gun to commit the crime. the harder it is, the less likely it is to occur, obviously it's not impossible though.
FYI its not illegal to have guns in Australia, you just need to be part of a gun club (which store your gun or you can store it at home in a vault) Or own a property of a certain size. the average citizen in Australia has no desire to have a gun and is happy the next door neighbor doesn't have one either.
what I'd like to note though is the way you see the police deal with people in the UK and Australia compared to America. They seem to be more relaxed and less oppressive, i guess its because they don't have to worry about being shot constantly.
perhaps the universe has been expanding consistently since before what we call "the big bang" perhaps we were part of a super massive (and i mean really big here) black hole that has seperated its self from a singularity due to (not causing) the expanding universe, this caused the black hole to release all its stored mass/energy in the form of the most simple sub atomic particles (muons and quarts i think, probably wrong though) which then combined to form what we see now as the observable universe.
then again perhaps space isn't just the medium of matter but is in fact the opposite of matter, and matter is simply just pockets of low amounts of space..
and maybe what happens inside a black hole isn't that everything turns into a singularity but instead reverses the time momentum, therefor if you were to observe matter inside a black hole it would look like its accelerating towards the edges of the black hole, this would also mean that instead of slowing down as you approach a black hole to an infinitely slower speed to the point where you can't actually go through the event horizon is just a reversing effect from the inside where going a standard speed as you approach the edge it appears like your accelerating away faster and faster until you appear to accelerate faster than the speed of light and disappear (to the observer). to the vessel that's attempt to "escape" the universe what would happen is that the rest of the universe would appear to be going faster to the point where either the universe would end dissipating into background radiation, or if time is circular you would then observe the "big crunch & subsequent big bang". regardless of the outcome this theory allows us to represent time as being no different to the other 3 dimensions and that we simply perceive it as being significantly different.
It's also possible that our monkeys understanding of 1+1=2 is flawed and that there is significantly more going on in the universe than what could ever be comprehended in our poor monkey brains.
I think the most important question is... oh shit, my lunch ended half an hour ago, i better go.
i doubt they can use Google services without adhering to the terms of service which would SURELY cover commercial use of the google results "product".
but anyone who wants to go to that store can still get in
as long as they are comfortable walking through a store with a large group of people yelling about how immoral the owners are. cyber "protests" in the form of a DDoS is just as valid. just because its easier doesn't mean its not valid. also.
hundreds of people get laid off by an internet company that can't run because a group of dickheads decided to take out their web servers in "protest", and they end up on the street with their families begging for a dollar.
if your INTERNET company employs hundreds of people yet isn't able to afford any downtime then maybe you shouldn't make un-ethical decisions, or at least insure or put away for downtime that could be caused from anything, not just a DDoS attack.
by that definition I'd be about 80% nerd (engineering ftw), 5% geek, 5% jock, 10% heart throb. I'm just awesome though.
the speed of light is constant, the distance between objects is what changes. (hence defining the speed of light as a constant).
your thinking of how light transmits through opaque objects, the speed on which the light travels from atom to atom through the opaque object is the same as constant speed of light, the light "slows down" because it has to jump atom to atom, light temporarily increases the energy state of the atom (which takes time) before it can be resent to the next atom, hence why light seems to slow down going through opaque material.
I disagree with the sentiment though 'the speed of light', they should change it to 'rate of electromagnetic radiation propagation'
touché
they aren't African black, but they aren't Caucasian either. (obviously, they are Indian...)
my assertion was based on "black people" can't have a successful society, as the only numeric of success of said society was the color of the skin, if it was truly important then lighter skin would be successful society and darker skin would be less successful.
as we know that darker skinned India has quite a successful country, there for the ability to create a successful society is not defined by skin colour. It doesn't matter as if your getting picky about race, then Egyptians exhibit more middle eastern traits than African traits.